Re: bulk-*

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 07:04:24AM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
> David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 08:30:57PM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
> > > > Add three meta-packages, bulk-small, bulk-medium, and bulk-large.
> > > > These are lists of packages that can be used to do restricted bulk
> > > > builds on small/slow machines without having to spend time researching
> > > > which packages to include.
> > >
> > > Why do we do this as meta-packages rather than as a list of
> > > packages for pbulk?
> >
> > What do you suppose a meta-package *is*?
>
> meta-package is a package, it is meant for end users.
> What you do is meant for bulk builders rather than for end users.
> Why do we do this as meta-packages rather than lists of packages for pbulk??
A meta-package is a collection of other packages - no more, no less.
I know, because I introduced the concept of meta-packages.
(from pkgsrc/meta-pkgs/Makefile)
COMMENT= Collections of other packages
(from pkgsrc/meta-pkgs/Makefile's log)
revision 1.1
date: 1998/07/24 14:53:21; author: agc; state: Exp;
Add web-server meta-package.
As such, I think the current location is fine, although the names are
sub-optimal.
> This is not consistent either. When following this approach we should have
> meta-pkgs/bulk-all package to build all possible packages.
I don't see how that follows.
> If it is really needed to be put into pkgsrc, then it should be in
> pkgtools category rather (along with pbulk).
No.
> I propose that we convert these into lists that pbulk understands,
> and put all of them into some package in pkgtools category. Again,
> if this is really needed to be versioned and distributed along with
> pkgsrc.
No, I don't think that's a good idea. pkgtools is not a dumping
ground for packages which are remotely related to pkgsrc; it should be
kept solely for the tools that are needed for pkgsrc's infrastructure.
Again, please see my first comment above.
Regards,
Alistair